13/04/2013 Dateline London

places. Still holding onto reasonable temperatures. There is

Hello and welcome to date Lyne. Today, the American foreign

secretary is in Beijing trying to persuade the Chinese to calm down

at North Korea. And we debate the international legacy Margaret

Thatcher has left. With me are Janet Daley of the Sunday Telegraph,

mark a roach of Le Monde, Stryker Maguire and Dmitry Shishkin off.

Welcome to all of you. John -- John Kerry is in China to

urge them to use their influence with North Korea. How serious

should we be taking the threat from North Korea and other Chinese doing

anything to help? On the basis of the precautionary principle, we

should take them seriously because this is safer to take them

seriously than to not take them seriously. However, we have seen

that the scenes from a Seoul and young people seem to be completely

unbothered by what is going on. It does have a different feel to

previous. In what way?We have a new leader and he is young and he

is untested. Unhinged.I would say untested. The military leadership

in North Korea is leaning on him a bit and we don't really know which

way it could go. I do think that China can play its card at any

moment and I think it can end this immediately if by telling North

Korea to stop. China has been quiet itself. Whether it is playing a

game or not, I don't know. Jeanette, I was interested by that word you

used, unhinged. Why do you think he is unhinged? I have been watching

the way he behaves. It is dangerous to think that if somebody is

preposterous, he is not dangerous. It doesn't mean they can't be

responsible for serious stuff on the global front. He is a young

conceited, almost to the point of insanity, young man who wants to

prove himself. The position of China is very interesting in this

because it is on the cusp. Does it want to be seen to be in cahoots

with a rogue state or does it want to join the grown-ups and become

one of the world powers? If war does it not want have sole

responsibility for North Korea? supplies most of North Korea's oil.

He can do that entirely through sanctions. Do they want to come on

to the world stage as a rational influence or do they want to

maintain a best? It is a question on whether they want to manipulate

currencies, hack into American websites. We have heard from this

meeting with John Kerry, saying peace, dialogue and

denuclearisation of the Peninsular. It is not new. I think the word is

deja-vu. He feels there is constant appeasement and brinkmanship which

is ongoing between North Korea behaving as if suddenly they want

to forget about being in this group of rogue states. Suddenly we see

footage of soldiers plunging themselves into the water waving

goodbye to their dear leader who has visited them in one of their

camps. It is strange and cheer and the old times a couple of years ago

when the previous leader would visit Russia regularly, Russia

would also have something to say about the situation. However,

Russia has been extremely an active in the situation. I don't think

Russia thinks of North Korea that much. Russia will have a say as a

member of the Security Council but it will go back and forth for some

time. I suppose they will be interested should the missile be

launched in their direction. In Le Monde, we did get into the with

David Canning and agreed with him when he said it is a question of

North Korea. -- David Cameron. For the rest of Europe, we have to

recognise the US and China have the cards to solve that problem. We are

taking a back seat for once. We are put all our hope on the Americans

and the Chinese to find a solution. The Chinese are careful in their

relationship with the European Union, to show they are a good

partner, we have good relationships with them and they are careful. The

West agrees on the need to contain North Korea and they will be

careful to not put that in jeopardy. We talk about China hold in the

cards on this. Commentators are saying the United States does. One

call from President Obama could solve this. Can solve what? My

sense from over here is that the administration has been, but this

in the US. There is not the language that we have heard in the

past, the run-up to Iraq for example. They have moved military

hardware though. Soft-pedalling. They have to do certain things.

They have to protect troops and do things in case something happens.

The Chinese, we always see they are interested in the stability but I

think they don't mind right now that this is destabilising in the

region, it is destabilising to the US, to Japan and it is

destabilising to South Korea. Janet is right. This could be them moment

to do something that they could do it any minute and me do it at the

last minutes. We will find out. Baroness Thatcher died this week at

the age of 87. Great Britain's first and so far only Prime

Minister would be buried with a fait ceremony next Wednesday and

leaders from all over the world are due to attend. -- a fall ceremony.

You love her or hate her, 11 1/2 years in Downing Street brought

huge change and I thought we would take a look at her legacy. Janet,

what did she do for Great Britain? Where do you start? She took the

British industry out of its Soviet- style post war command economy. She

brought about an economic revival that nobody thought was possible. I

think probably the most important, of course she made it clear that

Britain was governable, because that was questionable whether they

could control the country, the most important and immovable legacy is

the social revolution she brought. Every single political leader now

uses words like strafing and aspiration and personal ambition as

accolades. Having lived here in the 1970s, they would not have been at

that time. The fact that she put aspiration right at the centre of

political attractiveness so that the Labour Party had to reinvent

itself to cope with this fact that working-class people aspired to get

up and away from their roots and their background, we have the --

where they had been told by Labour that they would be looked after.

All of that went in the Eighties and that is irreversible. Whatever

else happens. That is why she is loved by the working class. She was,

on social matters, a disaster. She was a racist with supporting

apartheid, she brought all the dictators, she was homophobic. She

was a destructive. She destroyed the communities in the north. The

only thing she has to -- for me this she coped with it. She was

tied up with the North. It is a no man's land. Not all of the North.

The mining communities in the north, it is true, they were decimated.

The decimation of the Mining's -- mining industry in the north, it

was her having to cope with the extraordinary anti-democratic

militants. She decided to destroy the working class of the North and

she managed it and created that nasty, many selfish society. That

is how people saw aspiration. That is how people sought money-grabbing,

selfish, the word, individualism was never used with selfish in

front of debt. We have now come to the point where people can be

personally ambition to -- ambitious. I want to bring another person end.

One thing we can say is that she does divide opinion. I think two

things. One, she was transformative. At the same time, this happened

with Ronald Reagan in the US, as well. These are also leaders and it

is not all in their hands. They caught waves of public opinion and

social movements and wrote those waves in a fairy political fashion.

-- for very political fashion. Industrialisation has happened in

Britain and when you go up in the north, you can't escape the anger

about what happened to stop suddenly, it seemed like all the

men were out of work and the woman had to go to work in call centres.

It is not that simple. France and the United States, we all suffered

from industrialisation. Look at the example of the German mother. It is

a much more societal organisation. She has not been in power since the

early 19 this -- nineties. Regardless of whether you like her

or hate her, we are now seeing the consequences of her Policies which

were executed more than 20 years ago. They take your point about the

selfish individualism. One thing I don't understand how to sort myself

is if she was a good for the individualisation and an powering a

single human being to achieve their own goals, it is really hard if the

whole town it uses work. What did Margaret Thatcher do feed your

generation? I remember when I was a boy in the Eighties and there was

influenced by one broadcaster for a political programme. I was running

from one room to another, saying that if the cold war leads to a

nuclear war, let me die but let my sister live because she is only one

year old. I was six or seven. This was about the mid- Eighties with

the situation was on the agenda very much. The fear was there?It

was. Answering a question about why she has done to my generation, you

can draw some parallels about her role in history of the world on an

international stage and the role of Mikhail Gorbachev. Lots of people

have drawn comparisons between how hated Mikhail Gorbachev is. He was

someone who destroyed the Soviet Union, who brought not only the

Iron Curtain, but some say they don't think it is here. Mikhail

Gorbachev as well. She was revered in Eastern Europe. Russians like

their leaders strong. Gorbachev and Thatcher represented different

sides of the spectrum although they managed to draw a rapport between

themselves. He was extremely Margaret Thatcher and the Polish

Pope and made communism and freed the Warsaw Pact countries in the end

and that is the most important achievement since the end of the

war. The collapse of communism, when people just walked out from under it

in East Germany and in Hungary and Poland is, that is the most

extraordinary event and we do not even have the frame of reference yet

to come to terms with it. Equally, I understand your point but the reason

why the Eastern Bloc was freed from the Warsaw Pact and Soviet dominance

was because the Soviet leader, Gorbachev, decided not to use force

like his predecessors. I am sorry for Europe she was a disaster. She

symbolised all what is wrong with their British attitude towards

Europe. With her shopkeeper in mentality, she decided that for

Europe, you put a penny in and get one out. She was completely wrong.

She was wrong about the single currency. The economy of Europe is

as bad at the moment... So, it is all her fault! She changed the way

we deal together, instead of consensus she brought nastiness. She

wanted her money back and exemptions. I think you can argue

that she was wrong in beginning what Tony Blair then continued, which was

the idea that Britain would be saved by its relationship with the United

States. I think she was wrong about that. She did not have to turn away

from Europe. Why does she believe it in the first place, was at the Le

Mans with Ronald Reagan? No, it is about UK investment in this country

and in the United States. It is about historical ties. It is about

the Anglo-Saxon idea of democracy as opposed to the European example

which has been spectacularly unsuccessful. What about the

situation in the North? As if the European currency could be anything

other than a disaster. Germany... You add a Thatcherite. Absolutely.

Germany and France, there are successful economies have precious

little to do with the EU. Germany would arguably be more successful

outside the EU. What about the single market. Thanks to Thatcher A

she approved of the single market. The single market is a little part

of Europe. OK, Dmitri, her role and her views? Interestingly, she is

being criticised for her role now for the stands she took in that she

never tackled that kind of situation in South Africa. Equally, I have

been reading what was said about her in Latin America currently.

Argentina specifically. It is not only the Cold War which she is

credited to have helped end, but not a lot of people understand that she

did what she believed in and currently her legacy is about the

question of many people. What about the Nelson Mandela question? It is

typical of this white, Anglo-Saxon attitudes that she did not like

black South Africans. She did not like the multicultural society. She

would prefer the white Society of Britain. Only the successful

entrepreneur she likes. She was insensitive. Unfortunately, Cameron

and other conservatives have come to terms with the multi-ethnic

society. -- fortunately. She was insensitive. What was her

constructive engagement then? She had an enormous influence in for

example the privatisation programme globally which is universally

accepted. She created an economic model for a modern, capitalist but

democratic society will stop this has become the model for the entire

world of Europe. The balancing of the British economy is because she

made it a completely free economy. I take your point, when the economy

gets its money from financial economy not production it means a

long-term difficult situation. Post-industrialisation happens all

over Europe. I totally understand her position now to Nelson Mandela

and apartheid is no considered off the charts by everybody else.

need to recognise that society as a whole is consistently changing. The

multiculturalism we are talking about real estate -- realistically

is only the top of the 1990s. issue of a multicultural society did

not even get onto the political landscape. There were other fish to

fry in the 1970s, like whether the country was governable at all. She

had to take on a trade union movement which was Trotskyist or

Marxist. The threat to stability was huge. That was the top priority.

America, we know she had a good relationship with Ronald Regan and

the beginnings of the special relationship between the could --

between two countries, what did the Americans think of her? Do Americans

care about her legacy? I think Americans do care. Americans, as

fine as beacons -- they are concerned, there have only been a

couple of Prime Minister since World War II, one was Thatcher and one was

Tony Blair. The Americans came to terms with Ronald Reagan in the way

that people in this country have not come to terms with Thatcher. That is

because the deepness of the divisions were so intense here.

using if she was at a different time, she would be viewed

differently? She might not have been as successful, in terms of what

Janet says. She was doing something at a time when the consequences were

huge. Similar things were happening in the United States. The economy is

very different. When Detroit was dying in that period, I was working

in Texas and I remember going to the airport to take a trip and the auto

workers would pour out of the planes, pouring into Texas for the

oil boom for work. In this country, you had much less of that, people do

not move for jobs. In the 1980s, it was very violent decade and she is

responsible for that. You had these things the football, the type of

society she created that created all this nastiness. Not all the

politicians leave their legacy on one period being named after them.

Thatcherism is a thing we all have something to learn from.

Interestingly, in my country, the BBC Moscow correspondent twitted

that if you go 20 miles outside of Moscow, people still think Thatcher

is still Prime Minister. We are running out of time. If you had to

say what would her legacy be, quite short, what do you think it is? It

is a disaster. Definitely a statesman with not a street legacy.

It is strong leaders always make enemies. Social radicalism. She was

not a conservative, she was a Tory radical. Thank you all very much for